Painters outside classification.
As I met Jeanette ten Kate at Art Rotterdam she brought me to the attention to Terry Rodgers paintings' at Torch gallery. I had never heard of saw anything of him before. The ultra kitsch feeling it transmits (there was only one painting of his) was overwhelming. But Jeannette explanation about him wanting to transmit today's decadency, brought me to some thinking.
The paintings have complex compositions, they had been made expensively, the technique is good, but it transmits me little emotion. They are impressive, as you see all this perfectly shaped bodies, that have no contact at all with each other, it is a non real situation made look real. You can observe the same models even on this few examples. I hear that buyers are queuing to buy something from him. Maybe decadency calls decadency.
The baroque style, the realistic look and the social questions makes me think of Daniel Lezama's paintings. But more than anythings it is that kind of painters that are difficult to put in a box and catalog them. People love or hate their works, they call for very little 'in betweens'.
Another thing they have in common is they both have big ego's, maybe it matches well, big ego's for big paintings.
Here are some examples of Daniel Lezama's works.
In the case of Lezama he also approaches controversial topics but they have far more messages that only the apparent beautiful decadence of Rodgers'. Lezama's works are not beautiful, they are raw, they are cruel, they show also some kind of made up underworld. They are difficult to look at, they keep on asking you if you are participant or not?
I don't think I could live long looking every day to a Rodgers' painting but could I to Lezama's?
Maybe I have made a completely wrong comparison here, but it started as intuition and I let it go.
Johnathan Callan and Ron Vander Ende, crafty, creative, surprising and beautiful.
Regards,
Marisa Polin
As I met Jeanette ten Kate at Art Rotterdam she brought me to the attention to Terry Rodgers paintings' at Torch gallery. I had never heard of saw anything of him before. The ultra kitsch feeling it transmits (there was only one painting of his) was overwhelming. But Jeannette explanation about him wanting to transmit today's decadency, brought me to some thinking.
The paintings have complex compositions, they had been made expensively, the technique is good, but it transmits me little emotion. They are impressive, as you see all this perfectly shaped bodies, that have no contact at all with each other, it is a non real situation made look real. You can observe the same models even on this few examples. I hear that buyers are queuing to buy something from him. Maybe decadency calls decadency.
The baroque style, the realistic look and the social questions makes me think of Daniel Lezama's paintings. But more than anythings it is that kind of painters that are difficult to put in a box and catalog them. People love or hate their works, they call for very little 'in betweens'.
Another thing they have in common is they both have big ego's, maybe it matches well, big ego's for big paintings.
Here are some examples of Daniel Lezama's works.
In the case of Lezama he also approaches controversial topics but they have far more messages that only the apparent beautiful decadence of Rodgers'. Lezama's works are not beautiful, they are raw, they are cruel, they show also some kind of made up underworld. They are difficult to look at, they keep on asking you if you are participant or not?
I don't think I could live long looking every day to a Rodgers' painting but could I to Lezama's?
Maybe I have made a completely wrong comparison here, but it started as intuition and I let it go.
Daniel Lezama also: more info
The last photos are also taken at Art Rotterdam 2008.
Gallery owner Maurits van der Laar:
The last photos are also taken at Art Rotterdam 2008.
Gallery owner Maurits van der Laar:
Johnathan Callan and Ron Vander Ende, crafty, creative, surprising and beautiful.
Regards,
Marisa Polin
No comments:
Post a Comment